IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1599 OF 2025 (From the order dated 01.04.2025 in CC No. 95/2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka )

With IA /15247/2025 (stay)

Bhushan Kothari Petitioner (s)

s/o Bherulal R Jain r/o No. 49/25, Nambulliar Street, Sowcarpet Chennai Currently residing at Apartment No. B-4, 28 Ramanathan Street Kilpauk Chennai 600010 Versus

1. N M Satish Respondent(s)

s/o Late Marappa r/o 198, Gunjur, near Government School Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk Bengaluru560087

2. Smt. Kalpana Muthu w/o A. Muthu Kannan Proprietrix for M/s North Star Concepts A unit of M/s Shree Kaderi Enterprises Office at No. 199/D, 2nd Floor

4th Main, New Thippesandra Road Hal, 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560075 BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Arush Bhandari,Mr.Dev Ahuja, Ms. Sanjana Priya, Mr. Shashank and Ms. Vandeeta Gupta, Advocates Dated : 06.01.2026

ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Challenge is to the order dated 01.04.2025 of the State Commission (

daily sheet order at page 27 of the paper-book). As per this order, Petitioner herein, who was Opposite Party No.2 before the State Commission, was permitted to file written version in the office on the date of order itself i.e. 01.04.2025, as that happened to be the 45th day from the date of service of the notice. It is not in dispute by the Petitioner herein that 01.04.2025 was the 45th day to file written version.

3. They have drawn our attention to the copy of their written version which is dated 28.03.2025 and was notarized on the same date ( page 118 of the paper-book). It is contended by the Petitioner that they attempted to file written version on 01.04.2025 before the Registry of State Commission but same was not accepted. Written version ultimately was filed only on 14.07.2025 i.e. much beyond the 45 days maximum permissible period, including the 15 days discretionary extendable period. There is no evidence on record to show that Registry refused to accept their written version on 01.04.2025. Further, there is no convincing reason to show as to why it took them such a long time from

01.4.2025 attempt till the date of actual filing on 14.07.2025.

4. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757, the Consumer Commissions at any level have no discretion to extend the period of filing written version even for a day beyond 45 days maximum period. Hence, State Commission was justified in ordering filing of the written version on the date of order itself i.e. 01.04.2025, which happened to be the 45th day. We see no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission and same is upheld.

5. Notwithstanding that written version of Opposite Party No.2 before the State Commission i.e. Petitioner herein is not on record, it is clarified that they have right to participate in the proceedings before the State Commission by way of oral arguments and / or written notes of arguments, based on available records, making it further clear that they cannot bring any new fact or file any new document as part of their arguments.

6. With observations, RP No. 1599 of 2025 stands dismissed.

7. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed off.

Sd/-

(‘dr’iNDER JIT SINGH)

PRESIDING MEMBER Am/9 i